Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

While Bush ran deficits throughout his entire Presidency it wasn't until the last year he was in office that the spending really got nuts. Also at this time, huge amounts of taxpayer money was used to bail out your banks and car companies.... it was a real kick to the belly when people realised that executives from these companies recieved millions in bonuses out of this money. Furthermore, I have no doubt there are millions in your country who have been disapointed with the overspending since the times of Nixon, Carter, and Reagan.... when the Tea Party movement came along it was only natural that there were people waiting to get on board.

While this nis a good explaination for the founding of the Tea Party there also is another one:

The Tea Party and the Remaking ofRepublican ConservatismVanessa Williamson, Theda Skocpol, and John CogginIn the aftermath of a potentially demoralizing 2008 electoral defeat, when the Republican Party seemed widely discredited, theemergence of theTea Party provided conservative activists with a new identity funded by Republican business elites and reinforcedby a network of conservative media sources. Untethered from recent GOP baggage and policy specifics, the Tea Party energizeddisgruntled white middle-class conservatives and garnered widespread attention, despite stagnant or declining favorability ratingsamong the general public. As participant observation and interviews withMassachusetts activists reveal,Tea Partiers are not monolithicallyhostile toward government; they distinguish between programs perceived as going to hard-working contributors to USsociety like themselves and “handouts” perceived as going to unworthy or freeloading people. During 2010, Tea Party activismreshaped many GOP primaries and enhanced voter turnout, but achieved a mixed record in the November general election. Activismmaywell continue to influence dynamics in Congress andGOPpresidential primaries. Even if theTea Party eventually subsides,it has undercut Obama’s presidency, revitalized conservatism, and pulled the national Republican Party toward the far right.http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/williamson/files/tea_party_pop.pdf

Thanks for the thread. I'm still waiting for someone that identifies as left.

It's the strangest thing. The left doesn't exist. It's a self identity problem. The left don't even like themselves enough to be identified as left. They reclassify themselves as "fiscally conservative" and socially liberal even though fiscally conservative doesn't ever mean "tax the rich". They claim "centrists" positions but only when the scale is centered squarely in left territory. They identify with socialism and detest capitalism because of it's inequality and somehow consider that position 'centrist'. They crave government regulation against daily life in restrictions against themselves from eating the wrong foods and smoking, and any of lifes little joys that "costs the healthcare system and us tax payers money" and claim that is nothing more than responsible liberty.

If the left doesn't exist then why do we have all these things? Centrists?

These positions are very left... yet the only ones to claim being left seem to be people that live outside of the US. Someone explain.

I'm watching a cbs news piece about how evil food companies are for "making food taste good and flavorful" because that makes us like the food and eat too much, "weaponizing food." So, a republican that says people should be responsible for themselves and control their own behavior is a racist, fear monger but a "centrist" that says that Americans are not smart enough to control their own behavior, victims of racists, that need to be protected against their own urges are the 'liberators' of society?'

Such strange twists. Too bad there are no leftists to actually stand up for these positions. Just a bunch of centrists that are fiscally conservative.

The left don't even like themselves enough to be identified as left. They reclassify themselves as "fiscally conservative" and socially liberal even though fiscally conservative doesn't ever mean "tax the rich". They claim "centrists" positions but only when the scale is centered squarely in left territory. They identify with socialism and detest capitalism because of it's inequality and somehow consider that position 'centrist'

More psyco-babble BS...

I'm a democrat...is that simple enough for you? I'm not a socialist, nor communist, nor "leftist" -whatever that means in today's world....I don't get it.

I believe in tax fairness...not the same dollar tax for all as some seem to favor...but, a tax that is distributed along percentages...so, if asking the "rich" to pay at least the same percentage as me seems unfair to some...well, I don't get it....I do not understand why my tax starts out at 28% and can only move a couple of percent downward effectively while billionaires tax started out at 15% (now 20%) and moved downward from there...and have only seen where some think that tax fairness is stealing-I don't get it.

I don't think that anyone here claims to be from the exact middle...Looks in mirror and see's a person with ideals that closely align with those of the democrat party...I see a person who wonders why the social security income cap isn't lifted...wonders why the most effecient healthcare delivery system-medicare...is a target of the GOP...and why the Donut Hole isn't a bigger target???talk about unfunded crapye mandates...thinks that defense is necessary, but not to the tune of a $500 billion increase in funding (see Ryan budget)...and wonders why the military industrial complex needs to be increased at the expense of every American who wishes to retire before age 100....cut defense...I don't get it.

Yet, in all that I do believe in a balance budget and think/know that the deficit needs to be reduced to a more manageable number....how do we meet in the center to address this when the edges of the parties are so far away....I don't get it.

^^^ I get it... Your not a leftist. No one is. They don't exist. Your a democrat.

Taxes are higher priority then private property... more 'democrat' posiitionRegulations are higher priority then free enterprise... more 'democrat' positionBigger government is always preferred over individual acheivement... more 'democrat' position

The left just doesn't exist. They are not left they are "democrats" and just want fiscally responsible spending matched with equally high taxes paid primarily by the rich. I get it. it's more of a central position then left. No relation at all to that crazy far left...

It's may be indistinguishable. But lets never call it leftist. What do you have against leftists?

I get it... Your not a leftist. No one is. They don't exist. Your a democrat.

Ok...now I get it...your post is about name calling...so, I'm a socialistic, communistic, leftist...and you're an evangelical, wingnut, reich wing, neocon, fascist...ok...now I get it.

Taxes are higher priority then private property... more 'democrat' posiition

Yep...that's it...Tax receipt's as a percentage of GDP are still at lower levels than during the Bush years...the last balanced budget occured during the Clinton years and tax receipts vs GDP we much higher...Hmmm...we didn't go to hell in a handbasket then did we???

Stop spending on your personal credit card and just send in the minimum...and see how that work for ya.

Regulations are higher priority then free enterprise... more 'democrat' position

Yea, another talking point that's not based in reality...let's just do away with all regulations and let free enterprise take it's natural course...I think they should start fracking for natural gas in your neighborhood.

Bigger government is always preferred over individual acheivement... more 'democrat' position

Funny you should say that....there are the same number's of government employee's now than during the last administration...but, hey...don't let facts get in your way...

The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/has-government-employment-really-increased-under-obama/

What do you have against leftists?

It is the deragotory implication that you use the term "leftist"...you use it as a slur to imply a communist or a socialist...you use it in an offensive manor...you F'n fascist...see how that works??? No, I guess you don't.

No. I am not attacking. It was an observation. The basics I listed are basic foundations. Misrepresenting them by comparison to spending of Bush administration is not going to stick. Many may have been blind while it was occuring but that doesn't make the spending policy of Bush anywhere near responsible and to take that and continue it with current and not see that is also irresponsible.

They are/were not responsible because:Private property is of higher priority then taxes and irresponsible spending is a threat to private propertyPersonal responsibility is higher priority then regulations. - Irresponsible business is a threat as much as irresponsible government so no, unregulated business that runs amok is a threat to liberty as much as regulations.

That's all I'm saying and going to say. This thread is about what "leftists think" so I'm going to show self restraint and wait for someone that's left to explain the positions of today of insane spending, attacks on private property, and irrational social restrictions against personal liberties.

It is the derogatory implication that you use the term "leftist"...you use it as a slur to imply a communist or a socialist...you use it in an offensive manor...you F'n fascist...see how that works??? No, I guess you don't.

Well, I identify with Right and Conservative despite the labels of fascist... I don't take the offensive slurs as detracting from the actual position. However, for some reason there seems to be none that identify with "left". Why? If you don't support the ideals of socialism, communism or of totalitarian legislation then explain why those ideals are so firmly entrenched in today's political climate. They just avoid the name labels. The reclassify them as being for, "the protection of xxx" the social liberators. The hero's of victims. It's quite interesting. You should look into it someday. You just might be surprised.

I don't want this to be about right vs left. I really want to understand from the point of view of the OP. From those that are enlightened to the left. Where are they?

So what insights do you "leftists" have on the current events? How does it relate to the politics in your local areas? What are your predictions? Lets hear some of that famous liberal subtlety and nuance.

Misrepresenting them by comparison to spending of Bush administration is not going to stick

OK...then let me state this another way...taxes as a percentage of GDP are less now than during Regan, Ford, and the other George Bush.

Private property is of higher priority then taxes and irresponsible spending is a threat to private property

OK...then slash defense spending, remove tax loopholes and subsidies for business, stop the pork spending of the GOP and Democrats.

Personal responsibility is higher priority then regulations. - Irresponsible business is a threat as much as irresponsible government so no, unregulated business that runs amok is a threat to liberty as much as regulations.

So, how does mesh with this statement of your's???

Regulations are higher priority then free enterprise... more 'democrat' position

And just exactly how does one ensure "personal reponsibility" of business??? You seem to want it both ways at the same time...so, when it works you can take credit...and if it doesn't you can lay blame...typical :/

Why? If you don't support the ideals of socialism, communism or of totalitarian legislation then explain why those ideals are so firmly entrenched in today's political climate

That you and your counterpart republicans don't see it doesn't mean it's not so...while there are some democrats that are socialistic in viewpoints...the vast majority are not...they do not even come close to socialist or communistic views...but, it makes for good negative talking points for the GOP.

And yes...I am a liberal democrat...and by defination that is from the left...not from the leftist...which you identify as a communist....I am a capitalist...I ran a business for 27 years...that was in a self regulated industry...and that self regulation was/is a sham.

The reclassify them as being for, "the protection of xxx" the social liberators. The hero's of victims. It's quite interesting. You should look into it someday. You just might be surprised.

I'm not surprised...that is exactly how we preceive ourselves...just as conservatives view those XXX's as lazy good for nothing freeloaders....who steal tax dollars-the 47%...all the while many of these bold conservatives are heading out to the doctor with their medicare cards...and stopping at the bank to cash their social security checks....it's no wonder to many of us left liberal democrats are college educated and a great many of the right leaning conservative republicans are not....we see irony every time you guys open your mouths with all that illogical BS.

Or social restrictions against personal liberties...can you give us an example?

No, you give examples. Let's see if you really understand the principles you think you stand behind. If you say there are none then you live in a fantasy world.

If there is a far left that you do not identify with and that these people are the extreme. That means they have positions you do not agree with and have passed things that you do not agree with.

What are they? Describe the far left positions that you don't agree with that exist. I have no problem finding positions that are too far right for me pretty easily. I can recognize the variances in positions of the right. You should be able to do the same.

^^^ That's the point. You don't even know them. The left has positioned itself to be the center. You are either for caring about the needy or you are republican. That's an invalid position.

Equitable tax means tax the rich and give that money to the poor or you are republican and hate the poor. That is an invalid position.

The extent of gun control, feeding the hungry, and equitable tax have far left positions. You don't get to claim sole ownership over caring as being the sole domain of liberals. That is an invalid position but it is the position and stance taken. The extent that you are incapable of seeing some of the great harm caused by the left 'version of caring' is just how clear it is that your unable to distinguish between traditional liberal ideals and leftism.

That's not my fault. It is why these conversations can't move forward though.

VVV You misrepresented everything I said. That is also why conversations can't move forward.

You are either for caring about the needy or you are republican. That's an invalid position.

Funny you should phrase it like that...clearly you see the republicans as not caring too...and it is a valid position.

Equitable tax means tax the rich and give that money to the poor or you are republican and hate the poor. That is an invalid position

The GOP position is keep the rich taxed at 15% and fvck the middle class...keep em woking till their 100 and pay them 10% less each year....fvck em-let em eat catfood.

The extent of gun control, feeding the hungry, and equitable tax have far left positions.

WRONG...those are the position of the entire Democrat party...not just the extreme left...

I find it humorous that feeding the hungry is against all GOP principle's...this is exactly why the GOP is marginalized and is a vanishing party....there will be a time when there are 3 parties...the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Tea Party...at that time America wins.

You are either for caring about the needy or you are republican. That's an invalid position.

That's invalid, but somehow this fallacious claim is perfectly valid (since you stated it yourself):

Bigger government is always preferred over individual acheivement... more 'democrat' position

It is just this sort of lack of self-awareness and blatant hypocrisy that makes it virtually impossible to take your postings seriously at all-- that and your occasional episodes of nonsensical ranting...

I find it humorous that feeding the hungry is against all GOP principle's...

It's certainly not what the GOP is known for. The US was starting to reduce its hunger problem, but then the Reagan administration switched the national conversation away from that issue and deprioritized it.

There is a well-publicized doc that just came out on this very real problem in the US called "A Place at the Table":

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_place_at_the_table_2013/

The GOP is totally welcome to get on board, but will it? For that matter, will the Democrats?

^^ you are almost getting there. You are starting to see a difference between democrat and left and far left. Keep going... I'm sure you can actually identify it.

My statements of invalid positions were statements of "the positioning put on those arguments by the left". They are invalid positions because they are not true. To say that republicans do not care about the poor, needy, hungry, sick, oppressed, or even unfair taxing is quite simply a lie. How republicans address those issues may differ but to claim to be the sole ownership of caring is a lie and a misrepresentations. That is the real fallacy. I don't think you don't care. I just think your caring is misdirected towards causing more long term harm then temporary good. I don't think your an evil person... just overly emotional. There is even room for the emotions. However emotions do not make good policy.

VVV

<div class='quote'>Okay, so how about you give us one example of how Republicans are trying to be caring? One.By blocking the idiot polices the democrats keep presenting which will make things worse.

Like the business tax deduction exclusions of oil companies masked as loopholes and subsides for the general fund.

“Isn’t a better goal to help more Americans find good-paying jobs, to have the pride and self-respect that comes from that?” he asked. “Isn’t this a superior form of compassion that has a more solid moral foundation? Yet every time lawmakers try to reform the bureaucracy to accomplish these goals, they meet with the same response: President Obama attacks the reformers, saying such ideas aren’t compassionate or fair. But what is truly unfair and lacking in compassion is to protect a federal bureaucracy that is failing those who need our help the most.”

You must surely have an example of this traditional liberal idea you so hate. I'm all ears.

You are not all ears. If you were you could repeat one and do it in a way that doesn't make it sound like a baby killer.You couldn't even say it without saying that I "Hate" the values. I get the ideals. I just think they approaches to solve them are misguided and cause more harm then good.

Redistribution is forced confiscation of ones property to give to another and is often done under the guise of victim redress

Lack of property rights - Everything from real property to personal body are up for grabs. If it can be taxed it will be. The general fund needs it's subsidies.

Everyone is a victim and the liberals are here to save them. Anyone that matches the victim class but is republican or denies the victim status is a traitor, a sellout, or any number of extremely derogatory classifications because they themselves do not subscribe to the victim mindset.

@mungojoenothing but personal attacks and derogatory remarks with no regard to the arguments. IOW flaming.

@thinking You ask questions as though you have no ability to determine something for yourself with an ever present practice of trying to catch me in a trap. Ask yourself questions and answer them once in awhile. I've asked you many times to try and give your own examples but you can't or won't. If you can't use your knowledge to see an opposing side then you are one sided. That is your choice. I'm only asking you to try. Every one of those questions you asked you can answer for your self without resorting to calling me a racist, 'dittohead', or other derogatory and baseless name.

I don't think I'm right on everything. But I'm also not an idiot and regardless of my ability to throw insults back at and laugh it off and even then probably have a beer with whomever afterward that in no way lessens my ability to view larger themes or alignment of principles. I, for better or for worse, think about things. When I can, I try to increase my knowledge. That's all I can do.

You guys seem to have no clue what it is you think you support. Maybe the mental block isn't permanent for all.

Redistribution my azz...just get the Billionaires to pay the same effective rate I pay!!! Redistribution...wadda putz

You really don't get it. It will never be enough. Your not counting properly either. Even the rights of the super rich need to be protected. They are people too. Ever notice how rare the 1% are. Do you want them extinct or do you want them to be your slaves? If you knew what they were and why they existed you should find them a bit interesting and at least beneficial and maybe even worth listening too. You don't need to idealize them. You don't need to idealize the poor and working class either. You definitely don't need to idealize government. However, finding value in people is quite healthy. Finding value in people only in their monetary worth isn't so healthy.

Do you know what it is you support and how old it is? http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Try not to laugh and pull out the tin foil hat. Read through the list and ask yourself how many of those items are effectively completed. Despite what you think, there is a documented and real history and the origins are not to let you live in a state of blissful happiness. With the fall of communism, I think, it became watered down. Also, probably with the unintended consequences of the feel good feelings of the communist/socialist hippies era... pacifism weakened us but it also weakened them. Russia didn't expect to fall.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch65.html

The Mensheviks, or Social Democrats, or Neocons, true to their "democratic" ideal, have always been uneasy about revolution, and have much preferred the more gradual "evolution" brought about by democratic elections. The elections are to be primed, of course, by a Gramscian long march in conquest of the nation's cultural and social institutions. Hence, the discrediting of the Gulag and of revolution, and the disappearance of their Bolshevik cousins and competitors, have not been mourned by social democracy. On the contrary, Social Democrats now remain with a monopoly of the "progressive" march of History toward Utopia.

Which brings me back to The Answer about left-liberal hysteria. They become hysterical when they perceive a rollback, or the threat thereof, of the Inevitable March of History. They become hysterical at setbacks, at regressions in that march, regressions which have, of course, been dubbed "reactions." In both the Communist and the Social Democrat worldview, the highest, if "progressive," to be in touch with, on the side of, being the "midwife" of (in Marx's famous term), the inevitable next phase of history. In the same way, the deepest, if not the only, immorality, is to be "reactionary," to be devoted to opposing inevitable progress, or even and at its worst, working to roll back the tide, and to restore the past, "to turn back the clock." That is the worst sin of all, and it calls out all the frenzies, perhaps because any successful rollback would call into question the deepest, most powerfully held "religious" myth of left-liberals: that historical progress toward their Utopia is inevitable. Let reaction occur, let the phases be rolled back, and these people be rolled back, and these people flip out, go into orbit, for then maybe their religion is a false one after all.

You are not new. You are just a result. Do you even know the histories of what you believe? It should matter.

. The state should purchase, at a price equal to the cost of production, a certain proportion of the grain surpluses held by the better-off peasants in the more fertile provinces, the proportion being decided with the advice of freely elected representatives of the local peasantry.

You are the peasantry.

http://www.korolevperevody.co.uk/korolev/mensh-19-7-cong.htm

6. The congress considers that a leading role for the state in the economic life of the country is essential. However, it believes that this leading activity on the part of the state can increase the country's productive forces and gradually transform social relations in a socialist direction only if it is based on the active participation of workers' organisations in setting up and restoring economic life. In turn, this is only possible where workers' organisations are self-governing and independent of the state, and where general political conditions ensure that the proletariat can act freely of its own accord. The congress believes that work on restoring the economy must be based on freedom for the working masses to organise themselves and their own activities. Only in this way will it be possible to hold on to the positions which have been won by the workers. Then the path can be laid not to the restoration of capitalism and the political domination of the exploiters, but to real workers' power and the gradual establishment of socialism through the exercise of that power.

It's so much older than today. Anyway, this is not to say the commies are coming. It is just an origin story that seems to be either not acknowledged, not believed, not accepted, or other. I've said it before. It is a world ideology and there are three of them. This one is collectivism.

This is the change in political climate you are looking for. People are predictable. The end result can be understood without having to necessarily live it out. The path of collectivism doesn't end in the freedom of choice to live the life one chooses for ones own self.

All of the victims needing to be saved don't need your ideals to save them. Everything needed is in the freedom to self determine ones own life and path. There is enough there to force even the most ardent closest racist, homophobic and and oppressive group to yield to the rule of law. Then they could at least be free to really choose for themselves and not be beholden to the collective that just seeks to control them further. All collectivism does is change masters.

You speak of taxation as confiscation of personal property and therefor a violation of property rights. You have also proclaimed that being anti-taxation is an extremist position that you do not endorse.

You really don't get it. It will never be enough. Your not counting properly either. Even the rights of the super rich need to be protected. They are people too. Ever notice how rare the 1% are. Do you want them extinct or do you want them to be your slaves?

No I do not get it....I do not get why Billionaires with 12 homes located in all the choiceest places in the world, with corporate jets at their disposal to get there...who recieve the bulk of their "compensation" in long term "stock"-in lieu of wages thereby obtaining a base tax rate of 15% will become extinct if they have to start paying taxes at my starting rate of 28%.

Yanno...this downward spirl on the budget started with George Jr giving the wealthy the biggest tax break in history...he ran up the debt and fostered off to the Obamam administration $2.4 billion of first term unfunded obligations...along with a country with massive financial turmoil and massive unemployment-of Historial proportions...chryste, it took WWII to get us truly out of the disaster of the depression...and frankly we cannot afford another war.

You've said in the past $1 trillion of cost cutting over 10 years is a drop in the bucket...yet, sit there in your middle class seat telling us returning to the pre-Bush level of taxes will make Billionaires become extinct...funny, I seem to recall these very same PPL there before the Bush tax cuts (that helped drive us to the brink of financial ruin)...the only thing that's changed for the uber-wealthy is that they've amassed greater wealth at an even faster pace while the rest of the country has moved in the opposite direction.

Why is it so hard for Liberals to be honest? You guys are just pissed that some people are "rich" you don't think it's fair etc...Is it fair that millions use the same roads and use Government services and funds that the "rich" don't and pay nothing into the system...you keep quoting take rates for yourself..how much do you get back after all of your Deductions? what is the rate after that?

I don't make a lot of money but I have no problem with what "The Rich" pay in taxes...If a guy pays $3,000,000 a year at any rate he will pay more than I will pay in taxes in ten lifetimes...

You always quote some bs rate of %15 or so that the "Rich" pay..what about all of the other taxes they pay?

Millions pay zero tax or negative tax...you guys all conveniently leave this out of the conversation because your BS about "Fairness" is a red herring...YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT FAIR..you are pissed that some people are Rich and some are POOR..and you wonder why people equate Liberals with Socialists/Communists etc.....

Clearly, you've never looked at the stock trades of those considered "insiders" by the SEC...though, their trades are suppose to be blind...it's amasing how often they sell at or near peaks...and buy at or near bottoms of the market price for their particular company...I wonder what the stistical probabilities are for doing that-blind???

@thinking. I don't care if you don't follow what I am saying and it is too complicated or inconsistent for you. Don't you get it. Your the one that has no depth. You believe your reasonable and in general life I am sure you are. But you have no thoughts of consequences beyond your first reactions. The denial of what I have tried very hard to explain with a blanket statements doesn't move anything ahead. I don't care if you believe me. You don't have to. The statement, "what does capital gains tax of 15% have to do with bill maher is incoherent because nowhere did I ever even come close to defining any form of % as acceptable or not and I never took a position defining capital gains. That is your own fiction. I used Bill Maher as a very specific example for a very specific reason and that reason was not shrouded in mystery. As for the beer. You have to have an actual personality to appreciate that.In general I wouldn't discuss politics in person with people that can't cope. This includes republicans. Regardless of your opinion of my political position you really have no idea what it is. I identify with conservative republican because of everything I have said. However, that doesn't mean that I want to hang with Bohener or any other politician. The problem with liberals is that they don't know what being liberal actually means. It's a fictional story sold on TV and in popular culture and music. It isn't real life. It's fantasy. Social issues of the day are not the same as wise policy legislation. Being young does not give one wisdom to know that your actions today will kill people in the future.

You speak of taxation as confiscation of personal property and therefor a violation of property rights. You have also proclaimed that being anti-taxation is an extremist position that you do not endorse.

You are educated enough to not find this confusing. Taxes do violate personal property. However, a government is required. A government must be funded. That doesn't mean the government should be the biggest baddest monopoly on the block. It's a necessary evil. A "fair" percentage is 0%. However what is necessary is enough to perform it's duties within constraints.

Also, I have no choice. You mean you didn't know that 'money' isn't actually fully considered property?

The Ninth Circuit — not the most property rights-friendly court, and a leading source of Supreme Court reversals — ruled in favor of Sumner. The court first reasoned that money is not property: The development permit was conditioned on the payment of fees rather than some imposition on the land itself, so there could not be an unconstitutional taking of property. Further, the court held, because the fees were imposed by an ordinance, the city did not have to show any evidence that the McClungs’ development had an individual, adverse impact on the drainage system. That the city thought the pipes needed upgrading was justification enough.

What does it feel like when money isn't considered as property? Ask people in Californiahttp://www.businessinsider.com/california-entrepreneurs-retroactive-tax-2013-1

I’m not ungrateful or unrealistic. I fully understand the scope of the economic problems at both the state and federal level and the need for everyone to pay their fair share. And as a product of California’s public university system, I fully appreciate the opportunities afforded to me by living and working in the great state of California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_property

A unique category of property is money, which in some legal systems is treated as tangible property and in others as intangible property. Whilst most countries legal tender is expressed in the form of intangible property ("The Treasury of Country X hereby promises to pay to the bearer on demand...."), in practice bank notes are now rarely ever redeemed in any country, which has led to bank notes and coins being classified as tangible property in most modern legal systems.

So, which is it. Is it property or not?

You live in a different culture. What is considered property is largely cultural. It isn't a stretch of the brain to see the necessity of taxes in our society. What does stretch the brain is on what "fair" means. People here may feel that it is fair for middle class to pay low taxes as a percentage in comparison to someone with a lot of money seeing that same percentage as a million times more then someone else. So, your question was easily answered without you needing to try to trap me in some minefield of logic traps. Money isn't even real. Why would it be property? Because it is the means in which we exchange goods for labor. What is labor. Labor is the exchange of our services for money. Why wouldn't money be considered property? Unless your objective was to devalue labor. Oops.... Unintended consequence.

I wonder if you guys fully understand that a possible likely outcome of all this is about 20 years of republican control. probably not.

Yanno...you often have a lapse in logic...the case is about an unreasonable and arbitrary fee levied upon property owner who sought a building permit...and in the case the court ruled that money was not property....

The Ninth Circuit — not the most property rights-friendly court, and a leading source of Supreme Court reversals — ruled in favor of Sumner. The court first reasoned that money is not property: The development permit was conditioned on the payment of fees rather than some imposition on the land itself, so there could not be an unconstitutional taking of property. Further, the court held, because the fees were imposed by an ordinance, the city did not have to show any evidence that the McClungs’ development had an individual, adverse impact on the drainage system. That the city thought the pipes needed upgrading was justification enough..

But, I would reason that money is property...just not tangible personal property...which seemed to be the point you were trying to make

@thinking. I don't care if you don't follow what I am saying and it is too complicated or inconsistent for you. Don't you get it. Your the one that has no depth.

So, you blame an educated reader for not understanding your poorly constructed and unclear arguments. What is clear is your lack of maturity and honesty in handling disagreement.

You are educated enough to not find this confusing. Taxes do violate personal property. However, a government is required. A government must be funded. That doesn't mean the government should be the biggest baddest monopoly on the block. It's a necessary evil. A "fair" percentage is 0%. However what is necessary is enough to perform it's duties within constraints.

Also, I have no choice. You mean you didn't know that 'money' isn't actually fully considered property?

In other words, you can't really reconcile the two positions. That in itself is not that bad, but what is bad is that you do not acknowledge the complexity of the matter and the great potential for confusion. You do not even realize that you have failed to reconcile the two ideologies. It's that lack of self-awareness again.

You mean you didn't know that 'money' isn't actually fully considered property?

There you go making things up again. Fact is, I never really thought about it until you referred to it as such. So, I did some cursory investigation (for that motivation, I have you to thank).

What I found was basically your whole playbook on the matter, including all the articles you have cited here. They are mostly full of the same oversimplifications, irreconcileable contradictions, and equivocation that you are. Everything you say on the matter is straight out of the articles I found-- including the strawmen of the supposed librul culture's position. You get no points for originality there.

From the cited article:

The decision seems patently unfair, but even more — because we know the law can produce unjust results in individual cases — it goes against the Takings Clause. It also highlights a growing, nationwide rift over the judicial enforcement of property rights.

Courts are deeply divided over whether the Fifth Amendment applies to the taking of property by means of fees such as the ones the McClungs were assessed. They are also split as to whether legislatively imposed conditions allow a local government to avoid making individualized determinations of a development’s impact. Courts like the Ninth Circuit rely on the fact that the Supreme Court has never actually spelled out that money is property (an issue also at the heart of an otherwise unrelated case seeking high court review, Empress Casino v. Giannoulias). Nor has the Court clearly stated that monetary conditions placed on development are subject to the same scrutiny as other restrictions and regulations.

The fact of the matter is that the matter is confusing, controversial, and not established. Belittling me for asking for clarification from you just makes you look petty

I guess I must apologize then.

It is complicated. Imagine how much worse is it when the majority of public absorption is done in 10-30 second sound bites using the most aggressive metaphors possible to make the strongest point in the shortest amount of time.

I do not think I failed to reconcile the positions. It's not incredibly difficult. If something is considered property it must be considered difficult to take by law. It isn't just simply up for grabs at the whim of legislators. If it is not considered property then it is fair game.

If it is difficult to take and considered property it requires good legislation with obtainable goals and beneficial outcomes. If it is property than it has value and the job you work that pays you pays you in something of value.

If it is not property and at the mercy of legislators then legislation can be vacant of purpose for things like, "filling the general fund or paying off the deficit". There is no real necessity to ensure that it was ever used for it's intended purpose. Money is then worth less. If it is worth less then the value that you obtain for your labor is also of less value. Your services and your labor are of less value.

I do jump around from topic to topic. Not because of confusion but because everything is related It's a system.

I have still not heard anyone claiming 'left of anything' having a basis for any position other then "rich vs poor" or "victimization of class". The top of the ideal is money and who has it vs who doesn't. If there is more to it then I guess it is a super secret that I am not entitled to learn. Every time I look for a source on my own I end up in the 1900's with communists and socialists and a system designed to enslave an entire population to save it from itself.